Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Previous requests & responses

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

Help and Clarification needed

Salutations! I am dealing with situation which seems to be beyond me as a new user. Let me start what is this about. I have recently contributed an article Veleco which I have published, out of my own good will, not being paid for it etc. When creating it, I have taken reference from other articles of similar kind like Daelim Motor Company or Aeon Motor as an example, to correctly write my own. Since publishing my contribution, it has been a very tiring battle of attrition to keep it published. Firstly someone assumed I had a COI. Ok I have clarified it not being the case. Then it was assumed the article has not enough notability, granted I agreed it might not to someone, even though it does reference an independent newspaper source from Poland (where the company originated from), which is more than the company articles above do. Still, it was marked that it might need additional notability so okay, needs one more reference. However, the next thing I see, the article was PROD'ed by an editor and later moved to drafts by another user. Granted, I do believe the article I wrote could be improved still and am okay with adding more to it and making it even better, but could anyone clarify for me this: why are articles like those I based my own off okay and in published state, without references whatsoever, while the one I wrote that is slighty under referenced keeps being targeted constantly as if some people just wanted it gone altogether? Is this abuse or someone being overzealous? I would like someone uninvolved to look into this if possible since it is not very pleasant situation and to be honest what I thought would be pleasant experience contributing in wikipedia has turned into a rather unpleasant stuff. MartinOrl087 (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the article, and see only one cited source (the last one cited, cited twice) which might help to establish notability. I can't read Polish, but I'm suspicious that even that source may be based on a press release. So the article has at present either zero or one source that helps with notability; even if you find and add another, that won't be enough.

The argument "I've found a crappy article on Wikipedia, and am therefore justified in creating another equally poor article" does not convince anyone here. Most of us are here to help improve Wikipedia. If you find an article which does not meet Wikipedia's standards (and there are plenty), you can try to improve it to an acceptable standard. If you become convinced that that would be impossible, you can submit it for deletion. Maproom (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I don't think MartinOrl087 is trying to "justify" the quality of the Veleco article by reference to other articles. Rather, MartinOrl087 is simply wondering why Veleco is removed when the other articles are not. (And I'll add that MartinOrl087's experience is that a seasoned editor effectively deleted the Veleco article (by moving it to drafts) without any effort to improve it.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Butwhatdoiknow it would be just like you have stated, I am pretty new to wikipedia myself so many guidelines still are slighty confusing to me, and it's not the easiest system to get into, so I'm trying to learn more as soon as possible to 'fit in'. Regarding the articles on topic of scooter manufacturers, as Maproom suggested, I did indeed found many 'crappy articles' being in published state and staying that way for years. What bothers me is the why it feels like the one I have submitted was targeted almost instantly and no effort was made to improve it. First it gets PROD then as soon as PROD is removed with valide objection, next day it gets moved to draft space by someone else. I'm not trying to justify quality of my contribution at all, as I see myself that it can become better with more references for notability, which I will be adding. It is just that the situation seemed as if two people were deliberately trying to get rid of exactly this one article and it was contributed only on 5'th January. So in pretty much less than a month, effort by two people is made to get rid of it instantly. I would understand editors clearing up wikipedia, that's good but again, it was only my own contribution, while all those others stayed unchanged, even tho I suggested to those editors they might want to look up those others too if they are cleaning up the house, as it would be inappropriate of me to submit company contribution and go around PROD'ing other companies of same kind. They didn't seem interested in improving wikipedia by clearing up those other articles at all though. That's suspicious and feels like they were insterested in only targeting my contribution, so I'm trying to get advice and viewpoint from uninvolved editors who have more experience than I have. MartinOrl087 (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another, less suspicious explanation: Wikipedia flags new articles. Some editors monitor this list. Perhaps the other articles were posted when no one was looking at new articles. Or perhaps the editors who looked at your article were more persnickety than the editors who looked at the other articles. These two possibilities seem much more likely than either (a) a scooter company cabal bent on excluding Veleco or (b) someone at Wikipedia has it in for you. Whatever the reason, you'll need to find some solid references to Veleco before it gets back into the Wikipedia mainspace. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, either way I need to improve references, and thank you for clarificaiton, those possibilities you have mentioned indeed are much more likely. I don't honestly believe in some conspiracy theory that someone was out there to delete it for the fun of it or at least I hope that was not the case. Thanks Butwhatdoiknow, this makes it much clearer for me. MartinOrl087 (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced User reverted my edit and them made the same edit himself

Hello, few days ago i spotted an error in an image caption on the Wikipedia Logo site. Under the Wikipedia_logo#Milestone_commemorations for 6 million Articles just stood "6000" Articles. So i fixed the error by adding the missing zeros. After that i noticed this is an inconsistency, so i made ANOTHER edit and changed the zeros to "millions" like in the other captions. This was my very first edit ever and i felt a little bit proud. Since i have no account, i made the edit just under my IP. When i looked today if my edit was acceptet, is saw that Bruce1ee just reverted my changes with the comment "no need for that". Three minutes later he made the same edits again himself again which then got automatically accepted.

Is there anything that somebody can do for me, like grant me the edit? I just feel sad that my only ever contribution to Wikipedia got "stolen"... Thanks for every answer, Peter --62.46.198.43

You added the "File" prefix to some image names, and altered "6 000 articles" to "6 millions articles". Bruce1ee undid your edits, then altered "6 000 articles" to "6 million articles". I don't know about the "File" business - but your correction of the wrong number is still there, in a somewhat more grammatical form. Maproom (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "File:" prefix is not necessary in image galleries – it's implied. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I know the feeling. And perhaps it would have been better for the other editor to modify your edit rather than reverting it and then putting in the modifying text. But the goal for Wikipedia editing is improvement, not scoring edit points. You can take pride in the fact that you found an error and set the wheels in motion to get it fixed. Thank you for that. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Answers! I did not add the "File"-prefixes intentionally, that happened automatically! I will watch out for that now! So thanks Bruce1ee for correcting that.

I wanted to change it to "million" instead if "millions" but English is not my native language, so I wasn't sure about the "s" and made it consistent with the other Captions. it seems the version without "s" is the correct way to go.

The main thing is that the number correct now and I do still feel proud about my contribution. Additionally, the statement "I know the feeling" made me happy, thanks for that to you Butwhatdoiknow!

Case closed, Stay healthy and have a nice day! Peter --62.46.198.43

American Descendants of Slavery

FBA or Foundational Black Americans has been added to this page incorrectly. I attempted to use the talk page it has been ignored. The page is locked so I can not amend it. There is no affiliation between ADOS and FBA and it is listed there is no affiliation on the ADOS Homepage = ABOUT US https://ados101.com/about-ados

In addition, the citation source used by the editor for the recent major change is one blogger that has clearly stated his blog is only his perspective. And upon detailed review that blogger misinterperted the link he used randomly from twitter which was a dispute with FBA. That is not a source for changing the About US or having any mention of FBA or Tariq Nasheed on the wiki page of ADOS. https://honestmediablog.com/2019/11/12/whats-the-difference-between-fba-and-ados/

All of the below in the about should be removed:

The term Foundational Black American (FBA) is a synonym with the same meaning in referring to the sub-set of African Americans, coined by Tariq Nasheed. The main difference is that the term "Foundational Black American" is described as more apolitical than "American Descendants of Slavery" and its corresponding movement with the same name, in that it is seen more as an ethnic identifier rather than a political movement.[3]

and this entire subsection removed

ADOS and Foundational Black Americans as an ethnic group

African American Descendants of Slavery or Foundational Black Americans, can be described as an ethnic group within the larger African American community separate from that of the various ethnic groups that make up the modern group of Black African immigrants to the USA and Black immigrants from the Caribbean that are considered African American today.[4]

SECONDLY In addition the top of the page added African American Descendants of Slavery it is American Descendants of Slavery alone as found on ados101.com their homepage. Please remove that

Johnways21145 (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Johnways21145[reply]

@Johnways21145: The content in question was added without explanation by an editor less than ten days ago. I have reverted to the version before that, which (as far as I can tell) does not contain the content you are complaining about. Can you check the state of the article now? Incidentally, you can't edit the article directly yet as it has been protected against new users owing to persistent disruptive editing from other people. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing/changing format of existing content

This article contains a section that is flagged for improving, before editing I wanted to confirm whether I am able to separate the existing content under *additional research* into subsections which would allow me to add new material to the article?

LACreswell (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)LACreswell[reply]

Courtesy link: Scarr-Rowe_effect. Maproom (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have a fair amount of leeway regarding making sections. IF another editor disagrees then the community editing that article would need to resolve the difference. Short answer to your question: "yes." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDIA and GAB

Sir/Madam I am somewhat concerned or baffled by the way YOU describe GAB, as a far right micro blogging site. I have only started it using it in the last couple of months, and do not find it as offensive as TWITTER or FACEBOOK. both of which seem to allow far extremism from terrorist groups, or even I came across (immediately blocked) paedophilia, which is of extreme concern to me. YET I find GAB a more relaxed posting, polite. On twitter the most polite comment was "i hope you die" when I stated I did not want the Covid Vaccine as it is experimental. I closed my accounts on Facebook due to the horrendous abuse i received during the Brexit referendum, again "i wish you die was one of the most polite" On FB and Twitter you dare contradict a left wing group and 1000, arrive to insult you. Additionally of FB and Twitter politician and blue ticks due to their certified accounts seems to be able to post fake information and "get away" even when being reported to Twitter, if i do the same my accounts gets blocked (like the last one) I think you should review the description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.248.236.4 (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Wikipedia content results from the consensus of independent editors, there is no "YOU." (2) At the time I viewed the GAB article it described GAB as a site "known for its far-right userbase" - not as a far-right site. (3) That characterization is supported by a cite to four independent sources. (4) If you find something incorrect on Wikipedia the best way to resolve it is to click the "edit" button and fix it, not to come here and complain. Note that you will be required to support your edit with a citation to a reputable source. Your personal experience is not enough. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Punishment

I just happened across the subject article and was taken aback by the use of the term “homicide” to describe it. No matter your personal views about capital punishment, it is not homicide according to the strict definition (see article on “homicide” in wiktionary), which describes it as a crime committed by a person.

I would have changed the Wikipedia article on “Capital Punishment” myself to use an accurate term to describe it (“ending the life” is a decent way to put it; just plain “killing” would be OK if you prefer to be more crass about it) but the article is locked to editing. I recommend someone either unlock the article or fix the inappropriate term.

Thank you!

2601:192:100:297B:94F1:DF2F:51EE:233E (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Tom Green[reply]

Not that Wiktionary is a WP:RS, but the first definition there is "The killing of one person by another, whether premeditated or unintentional." Another source says Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. If one accepts the meaning "One person kills another", it fits. However, suggestions to change that article should start at Talk:Capital punishment (not locked). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor assistance required

Certified Professional Coder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) published via afc process and after few day another editor placed COI and I have responded to all queries mentioned by editor. Since than I am trying to get in touch with editor (on editor talk page, my talk page, article talk page) for guidance on what are next steps or if there is something more I can do to improve article. Assuming he/she is busy or not available I am asking for help/guidance on what I should do next?

I am new to Wikipedia editing and need guidance on next steps like if I have to do more research on topic to find references like book (I am able to locate one https://books.google.co.in/books?id=-FKcxQEACAAJ&dq=certified+professional+coder&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&redir_esc=y ) or something else. Jamesinhere (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about books on Wikipedia editing. My guess is that, if there are some, they would not be particularly helpful in this somewhat complicated situation. Unfortunately, the best way to learn - which really isn't very good - is to deal with issues as they come up. Hang in there!

I'm thinking that the reason you haven't heard from the editor who did the re-direct (GSS) is because GSS doesn't know that you're asking. To get GSS's attention either post on GSS's talk page or start your post on the article's talk page with "{{ping|gss}}" or one of its variants. Simply typing a link to GSS's talk page doesn't do the trick. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Butwhatdoiknow: I have already posted multiple times on GSS talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GSS#Regarding_Jan_2021 and article talk page as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Certified_Professional_Coder , now I am using "{{ping|gss}}" and hopefully will receive GSS reply. Thanks for advice.

I am just wondering if an editor is not available can't any other editor take over this? Jamesinhere (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any editor can modify what a prior editor did. But, how do you interest an editor in doing that in your case? Perhaps through one of these options. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

African American worthy of a Wikipedia

I would like assistance in creating an article for a subject named Rashad McCrorey. After several attempts I am now rightfully considered havingCOI. However. I feel guilty that my lack of experience in creating article has significantly hurt this person's chance of having a Wikipedia article as I do not know him personally, nor has he paid me, or asked me to write the article.

The subject has established borderline notabilty with Features on CNN, ABC World News, Forbes Magazine, Black Enterprise and more. He has far surpassed the Wikipedia 3 and is notable for 2 "seperate" actions. First for helping Black Americans visit Africa (specifically Ghana) and 2nd for choosing to move to Africa during the covid 19 pandemic. These actions have all been covered by the previously mentioned news cycles...

I believe an experienced editor would have more than enough information to create an article for the subject and format the page properly for review.

It would be good to have more African Americans on Wikipedia who are not athletes, entertainers or discussing negative images of Black Americans such as mass incarceration and drug abuse.

I have a stub draft where you can find some of the more High Profile 3rd party independent news sources including CNN, ABC World News, New York Daily News, Forbes Magazine and More...

please give guidance... — Preceding unsigned comment added by NanaKofiER (talk • contribs) 23:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Rashad McCrorey. It seems from the draft that all he's "notable" for is getting stranded abroad by Covid quarantine regulations. Maproom (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For further context, see the editor's history [1] and the conversation at my talk page [2]. There's reason to have a closer look at ref-spamming in articles such as Tourism in Ghana, which is seen as an opportunity to squeeze Mr. McCrorey's name into multiple places. 2601:188:180:B8E0:8804:65CA:7CE3:366C (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photo montages of cities' articles

Hi, i don't know if i'm right here, but it would be nice if someone could help me - i tried to make look nicer some photo montages of some cities, but there is someone - and (s)he is the only one who keeps doing it all the time - who reverts my changes. The cities affected are mainly Lübeck and Dresden, but also Schwerin, Stralsund, Erfurt, and Leipzig. It would be nice if someone could have a look at my changes and at the changes of the user who reverts my edits all the time, and also at what (s)he wrote on my talk page. One of her/his arguments is, that no photos of buildings' interiors may be included in photo montages of cities. I'd like to know if that is correct, and how many photos are allowed in a city's photo montage.

Example Lübeck: i made this photo montage:

and the user changes it to just this one photo:

and says that i have to reach consensus on the talk page for the photo montage. This can't be true? Thank you in advance.TheCarlos1975 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCarlos1975: Since you've posted this at the help desk, it's probably best not to post the same question here as well - WP:CROSS-POST. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you John of Reading, i posted the question here as well, because i only found this page after i had already posted the question at the help desk. I thought this page here is more appropriate for the question, and i think my question might not be answered adequately at the help desk, because it rather belongs here. It would be nice if you or anyone would help me. Thank you.TheCarlos1975 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheCarlos1975, you were given a clear answer at the help desk (which was the appropriate place), you didn't like it, so you're having another shot here. Sorry, that doesn't work. Maproom (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion help

Gospel for Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello, I recently asked for a 3O to provide an independent opinion on a content dispute between editors concerning the lead. The 3O denied my request for this opinion. The 3O editor labeled me as a single-page user and deemed me therefore biased in my edits. Would it be possible for someone to look at the merits of my edits and claims versus another editor's claims without solely analyzing my history as a user? I am a new Wiki user and I find the platform exciting, but every edit I make is reverted or deemed biased. I have tried to compromise with the editor who reverts my changes in the talk page, but it has not worked. I am looking for direction, please. Thank you for your time - I appreciate your help! Shelbychesbro (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)shelbychesbro[reply]

It looks like the third opinion editor found your edits to reflect a lack of neutrality in and of themselves. That editor's suggestion to edit other pages was most likely meant to say that, while you probably shouldn't edit on this topic, you should feel free to edit on other topics. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cultivation theory: Got feedback for ongoing rewrite?

Cultivation theory (re: effects of modern media) saw short bursts of growth over many years, achieving verbosity (see pre-rewrite version) seldom seen by this editor. Much revision is done, much more is needed. What Talk pages or Noticeboards might welcome such a request? Today, I added a {{Multiple issues}} template, and now figure it best to invite others for input. azwaldo (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just make the revisions you believe are appropriate. If someone thinks you've done it wrong then they'll change, revert, or post on the talk page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will Estes Bio

Please replace the bio you have on Will Estes's Wikipedia page to the below. His last name is NOT Nipper. Thank you.

WILL ESTES

Will Estes has amassed a diverse body of film and television credits, challenging himself with each role. On the small screen, Estes received critical acclaim for his performances as Jamie Reagan in "Blue Bloods" and as JJ Pryor in “American Dreams.” Additional television credits include a starring role in “Reunion,” and guest-starring roles in “The Cleaner,” “In Plain Sight,” “The 11th Hour” and many others. Also, Estes starred in the television movies “Dive from Clausen’s Pier,” “The Familiar Stranger” and “See You in My Dreams.”

Highlights of Estes’ feature film credits include his role in the Academy Award-winning World War II film “U-571” and the third installment of Christopher Nolan’s Batman franchise, “The Dark Knight Rises.” Additional feature film credits include “Mimic 2,” “New Port South,” “Terror Tract,” “Blue Ridge Fall,” “May” and “Not Since You.” Estes’ 2011 indie feature, “Magic Valley,” premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival. In 2012 he starred in two independent films: the award-winning “Line of Duty,” playing a drug dealer searching for redemption, and the noir thriller “Automotive,” which premiered at the 2013 Dances with Films Festival in Los Angeles. Also, he appeared in the psychological drama “Anchors.”

When Estes is not on set, he spends time with his dogs, friends and family. He is a surfer and a cyclist. His interests include film, literature and mixed martial arts. Estes’ humanitarian efforts include the Natural Resources Defense Council, World Wildlife Fund, Heal the Bay, Best Friends Animal Society, wild land conversation, humane treatment of animals, and Vote Solar because they’re consistent with his belief in advocating sustainability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.100.17 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The way to correct articles in Wikipedia is to click the edit button and make the changes. Note that any new content should be supported by a reference to a reliable source. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Converting a page to a biography

I was able to get a page published for Thomas Adam Regelski but now realize there is a biography template that would have been much better for his page. How do I convert his existing page into the biography template format? I have tried on my own with no success. Kruguitarz (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Kevin Kruger[reply]

Are you talking about {{Biography}}? It appears limited to new pages. Since you're dealing with an existing article you'll need to make individual edits to bring it into conformity with the layout at {{Biography}}. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

I just made a Sepak raga article but not long after, my article was interrupted by Heinztabs, he changed it according to his nationalist view, this is also very strange, how can an account that only edits a few pages to know my new page, except he is an account specifically spying on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northheavensky (talk • contribs) 13:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests for some options to deal with this situation. (Looking over your edits I see that you rarely add edit summaries explaining your changes. I encourage you to change to almost always adding an edit summary. See Help:Edit_summary#Always_provide_an_edit_summary for more on this topic.]] Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits get reverted without proper explanation again

I edited the article Sepak Raga based on the references, but the other editor, Northheavensky called it "vandalism" for no reasons and did not even engage in the talk page Heinztabs (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

my response : I just realized that he has copied the article from Sepak takraw, note, I was previously involved in an edit war with a blocked editor AksIarsd he tried hard to restore the page I edited, there is a similarity between the two that the account was created specifically to disturb/restore my edits. not only sepak takraw but also Baju kurung and songkok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northheavensky (talk • contribs) 05:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To you both: This is not a page for airing grievances. Take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests for some options to resolve your differences. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Sauli Niinistö Malay wikidata description

Help changing Sauli Niinistö wikidata Malay wiki description to " Presiden Finland ke-12 " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidlfarhn (talk • contribs) 18:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding achieving consensus (or lack thereof) for a biography of a living person

Hi! I am a (relatively) new editor in Wikipedia and am unsure how to go about this process. Recently, there was a dispute regarding the page of Padma Lakshmi. There was a non-registered user (just IP number) who added the ethnicity/birthplace/birth nationality of the individual to the lead of the biography. I reverted this per MOS:Ethnicity but then a separate registered user reverted me and stated that I need to start a talk page on the matter and that I cannot revert until consensus has been achieved, which I did. Today, something similar happened with regards to the nationality of the same subject in question and the same thing happened subsequently. I am in discussion with the user who disputed my edits via the subject's talk page but my questions are with regards to what the "stable version" of the article is and also what version of the article continues if there is no dispute resolution? I have evidence for why the additions stated by the other editor are in fact not factual which I have provided in the Talk page. If there is no consensus, does the disputed material remain in the article? What is the protocol? Does WP:Onus apply here?

Thank you, Apoorva Iyer (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mansigh

Hi there, I'm looking for a place to apologise and explain my actions regarding the subject above. My previous questions e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=1008441157 did not satisfy. Thanks for help? Regards. Ema--or (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]